Core Viewpoint - The public fund market in 2025 presents a stark contrast, with the A-share market recovering while prominent fund manager Wang Mingxu faces significant setbacks, leading to a decline in the performance of his managed funds [3][11]. Performance Overview - Wang Mingxu's seven independently managed equity funds have all reported negative returns year-to-date as of October 23, 2025, with four of them ranking among the bottom ten in performance within their category [4][5]. - The funds managed by Wang Mingxu have underperformed significantly compared to the benchmark index, with the flagship fund, Guangfa Value Advantage Mixed, showing a decline of 17.40%, contrasting sharply with the 17.06% increase in the CSI 300 index [5][6]. Investment Strategy - An analysis of Wang Mingxu's investment strategy reveals a high degree of similarity across his funds, with concentrated holdings in specific stocks such as Jiangsu Bank and Sifang Jingchuang, which have not performed well in the current market [8][10]. - The strategy of heavily investing in traditional value stocks has not aligned with the market's preference for growth stocks, particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals and technology, leading to poor performance [10]. Comparative Performance - In contrast to Wang Mingxu's struggling funds, the Guangfa Shengjin Mixed Fund, co-managed with Duan Tao, achieved a positive return of 18.29%, highlighting the importance of diversified investment strategies [10]. - The successful performance of Guangfa Shengjin Mixed underscores the necessity for flexibility and balance in investment portfolios, especially in a rapidly changing market environment [10]. Investor Sentiment - Wang Mingxu's management scale has decreased from a peak of 306.52 billion yuan in mid-2021 to 108.91 billion yuan, reflecting a growing trust crisis among investors [11]. - The dissatisfaction among investors is evident, with many expressing frustration over losses, indicating a potential shift in investor confidence and expectations for future performance [11][12].

Core Viewpoint - The launch of the floating fee rate fund, Guangfa Value Steady Mixed Fund (024448), is seen as a significant step in aligning fund manager incentives with investor returns, but the effectiveness of this new fee structure remains to be tested in the market [2][12]. Fund Structure and Management - Guangfa Value Steady Mixed Fund adopts a dual fee structure of "base management fee + performance fee," where the management fee is set at 1.5% if annualized excess returns exceed 6%, and reduced to 0.6% if excess returns are negative and below -3% [2][12]. - Wang Mingxu, the proposed fund manager, has a mixed track record, with some funds significantly underperforming their benchmarks [3][11]. Performance Analysis - Wang Mingxu currently manages over 10 billion yuan across seven products, with notable performance discrepancies; for instance, Guangfa Balanced Preferred Mixed Fund (010379) has returned -3.4% since his appointment, lagging its benchmark by 6.3 percentage points [3][11]. - Over the past three years, more than 60% of Guangfa's actively managed equity products have underperformed their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points, raising concerns about the alignment of management compensation with investor returns [11][12]. Employee Compensation and Shareholding - Guangfa Fund's employee shareholding platform has distributed nearly 600 million yuan in dividends over the past five years, with significant amounts going to top executives, highlighting a disparity between management income and investor returns [5][8]. - The shareholding structure includes several high-ranking executives, indicating a strong financial incentive tied to the fund's performance, yet the actual returns for investors have been disappointing [6][12]. Regulatory Context - The floating fee rate initiative is part of a broader regulatory push to reform the public fund industry, aiming to better align fund company revenues with investor returns and establish a performance-based incentive system [2][12]. - The regulatory framework emphasizes the need for fund managers to be held accountable for long-term performance, with penalties for those consistently underperforming [12].